• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Question for the twoofers about why NIST is wrong

Quad4_72

AI-EE-YAH!
Quad4_72
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
6,354
Ok so I would like you to shed some light on this for me twoofers. Why is the NIST report wrong? Using actual scientific data and physics, why is it not possible for the towers to collapse the way NIST said that they did? What specifically did they mess up on? Here are some unacceptable answers:

"I just simply don't believe that it could happen that way"
"I don't buy that government influenced report."
"I disagree with what the report said."
"There is no way the towers could collapse from just fire."

Acceptable answers:
"I just simply don't believe that it could happen that way BECAUSE...(insert scientific data/physics/evidence)
"I don't buy that government influenced report BECAUSE...(insert scientific data/physics/evidence)."
"I disagree with what the report said BECAUSE...(insert scientific data/physics/evidence)."
"There is no way the towers could collapse from just fire BECAUSE...(insert scientific data/physics/evidence)."

What I am looking for is some specific explanations using science as to why NIST got it wrong. What are the reasons that you don't believe a panel of 200 experts with years of experience assigned specifically to investigate the collapses. By reasons, I don't mean "because they work for the government." If they really were paid off to fabricate a report, it should be easily proven wrong using science and physics. So have at it twoofers. Lets hear it.

Note: I am looking for actual data and scientific explanations that could be proven in a peer reviewed journal. I know, that is asking a lot but that is how the real world works. Sorry.:(
 
Last edited:
"There is no way the towers could collapse from just fire BECAUSE...(insert scientific data/physics/evidence)."
Click to expand...

You might want to edit that one to include structural damage :boxedin:
 
I know that there are twoofers floating around...still waiting for an answer...
 
Quad4_72 said:
I know that there are twoofers floating around...still waiting for an answer...
Click to expand...

I would not hold my breath.
If you have learned anything on the JREF forums, it should be that A direct question to a Twoofer leads to a merry chase around the bushes...
"OOOOOHHHH-I love to dance a little sidestep..."
 
Dumbest quote ever. "We spent 30,000 times more on the wars than spent figuring out why we are fighting the wars."
 
Watch it all. He gets in depth into the 7 stages of failure that NIST propose. If you can tell me why his rebuttals of those stages is wrong then I would apreciate it
 
Wizard said:
The Screw Loose Change video is on google video, are you admitting it is untrue?
Click to expand...
The parts, of "LC ", it shows to be... yes! NEXT!

PS
I never claimed google to be false, just the CTers interpritation of what they see on it!
 
Last edited:
Wizard said:
Great you like google video. Glad we could clarify that
Click to expand...
black and white again? i dont like or dislike google video, its the videos hosted on it that need to be judged as to their validity

kevin ryan hasnt been doing so hot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom